Ximian to Change License for Mono

A Commentor writes: "According to news.com Ximian is changing the license to Mono from GPL to a variant of the XFree license. Apparently this is due to a partnership with Intel." Update: 01/28 15:03 GMT by T : There's a story at NewsForge as well, where RMS weighs in firsthand on the license choice.

Comments

Re:down with GPL

[xonker]

It is clear that Stallman and the GPL are not really about freedom.

Please, do not make the mistake of assuming that the GPL and RMS are inseparable. The GPL is about sharing code, and protecting it. RMS may have an agenda that's beyond that, probably, in fact. But, the GPL itself is not viral beyond code already under the GPL.

I really wish that RMS would retire at this point and allow some more reasonable and personable people to further the Free Software cause. I think he may be doing more harm than good at this point.

I have no beef with the BSD-style licenses, but I wouldn't use one for a project if my life depended on it. If I decide to release code as Free Software, with no real expectation to make money off of it or whatever, then I expect others that want to build on it or redistribute it to give others the same benefits that I've given them. That's the price for using GPL'ed code. If that price isn't acceptible, then they shouldn't look to building on Free Software.

The viral nature of the GPL isn't there as a side effect of trying to protect Open Source.

Right and wrong. The viral nature isn't a side effect -- it's a feature. The GPL's primary goal is to protect the software from being closed, but it is not in and of itself a means to kill off closed-source software. Nothing about the GPL prevents companies from releasing closed-source software, it only prevents them from using the GPL'ed software in those products. Sure, I bet many developers hope that the GPL would be the dominant license, but using the GPL only harms closed source software by providing an alternative and giving people a choice. If closed source software can't compete, oh well.

So what if someone tries to rip off your BSD software and do a closed modification.

Just lay back and take it, I suppose. Gee, I didn't know Billy G. read Slashdot. This isn't a trivial matter, so don't trivialize it. Most folks that use a BSD license intentionally use it so that businesses can have the option of using it in proprietary software. If they're comfortable with that, so be it. They're not being ripped off if they intentionally allow this.

However, I see nothing that serves the Greater Good in allowing companies to embrace and extend Free Software and having no obligation to contribute. If a company wants to play the proprietary licensing game, then let them pay for 100% of the code that they use, just as they expect their customers to do. They can either pay up to the original developers and convince them to dual-license the software, or write it from scratch. If you went to one of these companies and said "hey, my small business is just getting started and I need 20 licenses for your software to seed my business" they'd tell you "no free lunch. Pay up or fsck off." You should tell them the same.

Re:Given up on Ximian

[lordsutch]

They seem to be focusing on staying two steps behind Microsoft (Evolution, Mono, Gnumeric...)

Slam me if you like, but Gnumeric means I can keep my gradebook and track my business P/L on a free software application instead of dual-booting Windows. People need good spreadsheets and groupware to do real work.

Oh, and "apt-get install evolution-ssl" works just fine here... installing good software for Linux doesn't have to be hard, you know.

DotGNU Portable.NET

[rhysweatherley]

With this decision, all of the Mono components are now non-Free, or can be made non-Free at any moment. In this message, Miguel makes it clear that Ximian wants to own the Copyright to the engine and C# compiler also, so they can change the license on that whenever they see fit.

This leaves DotGNU Portable.NET as the only true Free Software project tackling the implementation of the CLR, C# compiler, C# class library, etc.

http://www.southern-storm.com.au/portable_net.html .

We are looking for developers to help us build our system into a truly-Free implementation. Portable.NET has been around longer than Mono, and remains true to the principles of Free Software.

Re:DotGNU Portable.NET

[Arandir]

...or can be made non-Free at any
moment.

Hah! Hah! Hah! You're so full of it the roto-rooter man is jealous.

Let's say I have an MIT-X11 program sitting on my ftp site. How, just how, can anyone make it non-free? They could of course download their own copy, build it, and distribute the resulting binary source-less. But that non-free binary will be on their ftp site, not mine. My copy is still 100% free.

You know, if you were correct, Bill Gates could stop Linux in its tracks in a heartbeat. All he would have to do is relicense XFree86 under a proprietary license, and suddenly it's no longer free. You have have to pay royalties to Microsoft to use any GUI on Linux. But guess what? That's not the way the world works. Bill Gates could do all sorts of evil and heinous things to his *copy* of XFree86, but his filthy hands will never touch my copy, your copy, or the copy at ftp.xfree86.org.

Frankly, if someone wants to use a non-free binary instead of my free binary that comes with source code, that's *their* decision.

Back up this claim with evidence.

[Carnage4Life]

Well if we talk about software being taken from BSD, used, and the source dissappears for ever, there is probably no better example than Microsoft [microsoft.com]. Their network stack owes a lot to BSD, but has any of it been passed back? No.

This claim is one of those internet myths that has festered on Slashdot that has never been conclusively proved.

However this myth has been debunked in an article by a former Microsoft employee that explains with really happened?

Secondly, unlike most of the zealots on Slashdot I don't think the purpose of Free Software is a battle between prospective platforms and user communities but instead is the optimal way to provide utility to users of software. Even if MSFT uses a BSD-derived TCP/IP stack, this would mean that improved networking has benefitted millions of computer users who use MSFT Windows and couldn't handle BSD boxen. The BSD license is about getting as many people as possible to benefit from your software and not an attempt to bend the software industry to the world view of a dissaffected MIT computer science professor.

Re:The more interesting news in this aritcle...

[znu]

.NET isn't just a new development platform. It's a delivery vehicle (to use the cigarette industry's term) for subscription-based web services. What is open source's answer to this? All Mono does is provide a way for Microsoft to sell its services to non-Windows users. While the open source community worries about building a free telephone, Microsoft is setting itself up to own the phone network.